[Vision2020] Define Tax Support
John Danahy
jdanahy@turbonet.com
Sun, 21 Sep 2003 16:57:42 -0700
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C38061.7BD956D0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
When talking about the Alturas Park, mis-identification of what =
constitutes
tax support has usually come up. Are the day to day operations of the =
park
supported by taxes? My guess would be no. Was the original development
supported by taxes? Based on the information available at the time =
voters
approved the park, my answer would be yes. Why? Because voter approval
would not have been needed otherwise. It is easy to claim or forget =
what
happened years ago, which is what the city government is counting on =
when it
tries to change the original intent.
I have no problem with the city's wanting to change the direction of the
park, provided the city "sells" the park to private ownership. By this =
I
mean the city should try to recover the original investment that tax =
payers
supported, either by direct "sale" or by a LID style of local tax =
increase.
If I remember correctly, the Park "paid" for its infrastructure by =
having
the city redirect its taxes into paying off a bond rather than =
supporting
city services. The rest of the community supported the services, =
including
those of the park, by paying a greater share of the tax burden. Thus =
the
park is indeed a tax supported enterprise. The community, by supporting
this idea thru voter approval, (unlike so many other "ideas" of city
government where voter approval is unwanted) supported the original
direction; that is, a high tech business park.
Yes, it was a gamble, but the community thought it was a good one. =
What, to
my mind, hasn't been fully addressed by the city, is why the idea =
failed.
To express the failure in terms of a high tech downturn, is to =
nefariously
oversimplify where the city and the park went wrong.
John
jdanahy@turbonet.com
=20
------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C38061.7BD956D0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)">
<style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{font-family:Arial;
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple>
<div class=3DSection1>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>When talking about the </span></font><font =
face=3DArial><span
style=3D'font-family:Arial'>Alturas</span></font><font =
face=3DArial><span
style=3D'font-family:Arial'> </span></font><font face=3DArial><span
style=3D'font-family:Arial'>Park</span></font><font face=3DArial><span
style=3D'font-family:Arial'>, mis-identification of what constitutes tax =
support
has usually come up. Are the day to day operations of the park =
supported
by taxes? My guess would be no. Was the original development
supported by taxes? Based on the information available at the time =
voters
approved the park, my answer would be yes. Why? Because =
voter
approval would not have been needed otherwise. It is easy to claim =
or
forget what happened years ago, which is what the city government is =
counting
on when it tries to change the original intent.</span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>I have no problem with the city’s wanting to =
change
the direction of the park, provided the city “sells” the =
park to
private ownership. By this I mean the city should try to recover =
the
original investment that tax payers supported, either by direct =
“sale”
or by a LID style of local tax increase.</span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>If I remember correctly, the Park “paid” =
for its
infrastructure by having the city redirect its taxes into paying off a =
bond
rather than supporting city services. The rest of the community =
supported
the services, including those of the park, by paying a greater share of =
the tax
burden. Thus the park is indeed a tax supported enterprise. =
The community,
by supporting this idea thru voter approval, (unlike so many other =
“ideas”
of city government where voter approval is unwanted) supported the =
original
direction; that is, a high tech business park.</span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>Yes, it was a gamble, but the community thought it =
was a good
one. What, to my mind, hasn’t been fully addressed by the =
city, is
why the idea failed. To express the failure in terms of a high =
tech
downturn, is to nefariously oversimplify where the city and the park =
went
wrong.</span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>John</span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><a =
href=3D"mailto:jdanahy@turbonet.com">jdanahy@turbonet.com</a></span></fon=
t></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Arial'> </span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>
------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C38061.7BD956D0--